Chapter 27

Changing Political, Religious, Economic, and Social
Patterns

THE 1990s has seen a bewildering escalation of change
in almost every aspect of society. Some perceptive analysts, focusing upon
the issues of personal liberty, have noted that frequently these societal
changes are altering both the focus and the emphasis that once safeguarded
the personal freedoms of society’s citizens.

Political Issues

There are growing concerns that government is greatly
reducing the liberties of its citizens. There is a significant spectrum of
concerns, as increasingly the lives of the citizens are regulated. We
certainly acknowledge the fact that government has hard decisions to make
today, decisions that were never encountered in earlier history. For
example, arising out of the terrorist bombing in New York City, and the
Oklahoma bombing, there is a tendency for legislators to contemplate
increased control over the citizens of the nation in the name of
protection. Many wise legislators are yet having great difficulty in
drawing that fine line between the protection of the citizens of the
nation on the one hand, and the protection of individual freedoms on the
other.

Fear of terrorism has greatly increased security
operations in many areas, including airports and government facilities.
The question is, How much of our individual freedoms are we willing to
surrender in the name of security? These are difficult questions to
answer, but above all we must oppose anything but the most necessary
protective measures.

There is reason for deep concern about the increasing
power that has been invested in the President of the United States. Many
are afraid of the President’s powers, which can be exercised without
recourse to Congress and the wider forum that Congressional debate offers
on issues. One simple power that is a concern to many citizens, is the
President’s power to declare special days for public observance. Having
noted the extended and often bitter debate over Sunday legislation
throughout the nineteenth century, this has led to much concern that any
move for the enactment of such legislation be defeated. Of deep concern
are rumors that Sunday might be legislated as "a family day."
Perceptive citizens would see this, as did the discerning citizens of last
century, as a veiled intrusion into the religious choices of the people.
Others are concerned about the President’s new power to exercise line
item veto. The more powers that one individual has, the more the
likelihood of the development of coercive, ill-considered, or dictatorial
decisions.

Of even deeper concern has been the development of the
concept of "fast track," by which the President would have
approval to sign international treaties and would have much more latitude
to influence international trade and international relations. Already
there is deep concern about the number of treaties that America has signed—more
than five hundred of them—all of which have not borne the scrutiny of
the Constitution of the United States, and thus in effect supersede it.

Increasingly, legal decisions are being taken in
respect, not of the sovereign decisions of the nation, but in line with
the so-called world community. Thus globalism is making strong inroads
into the American society. Of course, America is but one nation that is
accepting these international treaties. Australia has accepted almost two
thousand International Treaties and United Nations conventions.

In the dying embers of his administration, President
Reagan signed the genocide treaty, something that seven previous
Presidents (Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter)
had refused to do since the treaty had been proposed in the early years of
the United Nations. There is a deepening fear that the articles of the
genocide treaty may be used to persecute citizens who seek to disclose the
errors perceived in religions other than their own. For example, among the
subclauses of Article III dealing with acts that are punishable is
subclause (c):

Direct and public incitement to commit genocide
(Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide,
General Assembly of the United Nations, 9 December, 1948)

Fears were increased when subsequently, Congress
decided that the death penalty would be invoked for violation of this
treaty.

Although the authors stand firmly and resolutely
against any form of genocide, they also see in the treaty the above
dangerous clause, which could permit the curtailing of free speech for
anyone who sought to show the errors of another’s religion. Such a
person could be accused of violating the genocide treaty, for this treaty
covers much more than the destruction of ethnic, religious, or political
groups. The treaty also endangers the exercise of free speech.

This threat to free speech has taken other forms in
other countries. For example, Canada enacted laws prior to the visit of
the Pope, that made it an offense to speak out against the Pope. This
surely is a serious violation of religious liberty. Efforts have been made
in Australia to enact anti-vilification laws. Once again, these laws
clearly would violate the free speech of the citizens of Australia.
Australia in 1949 signed the genocide treaty.

When we were boys, we often heard the statement,
"Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt
me." That maxim is surely true today, and any curtailing of an
individual’s right to speak out against an organization or a group will
set a dangerous precedent.

The genocide treaty illustrates a growing peril. Many
laws, constitutional articles, treaties, or regulations attract popular
support because the matter set before the citizens is one which no right
thinking individual could oppose. This surely is true of genocide. But, no
doubt by design, the architects of the treaty also intruded into that
treaty, aspects which no right-thinking person should accept. These
aspects were played down, while the genocide aspect was emphasized. Thus
nations were beguiled into signing the treaty without fully exploring the
consequences to their citizens, of the subclauses which potentially
subvert their inalienable rights.

Economic Issues

Rapid globalization of economies is already producing
ominous results. The NAFTA (North American Free Trade Association) treaty
was surely just a microcosm of the greater thrust to bring all nations
under the one global economic organization. More alarming still were the
implications of the GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) Treaty,
which involved well over one hundred nations. While the possible evils of
the GATT Treaty are yet to be witnessed, the goals are very obvious. Once
again, efforts are in place to reduce greatly, if not to eliminate, the
sovereignty of each nation. Therefore the citizens of the nations of the
world will soon be facing the reality that their liberties and national
sovereignty will be impaired or totally lost in the interest of the global
community.

Those who have taken even a limited interest in the ups
and downs of the stock market will realize just how dramatic is the impact
when one nation’s economy falters. The very difficult time at the end of
the 1990s, experienced by some of the Asian countries, had great
implications in nations as far away as the United States, Australia, and
Great Britain. The more closely the economic interests of each nation are
tied together, the greater the likelihood of a whole world economic
collapse which would make the depression of the 1920s and 1930s shrink
almost into insignificance.

Some experts are warning about the reduced rights in
private property ownership, as usage of property becomes increasingly
regulated, and as building codes become more stringent. In a very
interesting presentation in Imprimis, vol. 26, p. 8, Richard
Ebeling, Ludwig von Mises Professor of Economics, Hillsdale College, warns
against the increasing trend of government, including the United States
government, to intervene in the free market economy. In his presentation,
Ebeling presents a clear distinction between the socialistic-communistic
collectivism that brings all business and economic enterprises under the
control of government, and a free market economy which allows for the
ownership and initiative of individuals of the nation. Ebeling points out
that characteristics of a genuine free market economy include "(1)
all means of production are privately owned; (2) the use of the means of
production is under the control of private owners who may be individuals
or corporate entities; (3) consumer demands determine how the means of
production will be used; (4) competitive forces of supply and demand
determine prices for consumer goods and various factors of production like
labor; (5) the success or failure of individual and corporate enterprises
is determined by the profits or losses these enterprises earn, based on
their greater or lesser ability to satisfy consumer demand in competition
with their rivals in the market place; (6) the market is not confined to
domestic transactions and includes freedom of international trade; (7) the
monetary system is based on a market-determined commodity (e.g. gold or
silver), and the banking system is private and competitive, neither
controlled nor regulated by government; (8) government is limited in its
activities to the enforcement and protection of life, liberty, and
property."

Ebeling, however, points out that though socialism,
communism, fascism, and nazism are all but dead and have failed miserably,
they are now being—"replaced by what is merely another more watered
down form of collectivism that may be called ‘interventionism’"
(Ibid.). Ebeling proceeds to point out the consequences of regulating all
business transactions. He suggests that once again government infringes
civil rights, and the freedoms of the individual are violated.

Environmental Issues

Every responsible citizen is firmly committed to
helping to maintain, or where necessary to restore reasonable ecological
balance to our planet. But evidence mounts that some of the increasing
environmental regulations are imposing severe economic hardships upon many
law-abiding citizens. Often, decisions are made without evidence of need.
For example, a corporation built its sewage ponds lined with impervious
clay. Some years later the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
required the corporation to either prove the pond was not leaking, or line
the pond. The onus was not on the department to prove leakage, but rather
upon the corporation to prove the pond was not leaking. To do the latter
would have cost about fifty percent of what it cost to line the pond. To
avoid further annoyance, the corporation chose to line the pond at
considerable cost, without the slightest evidence of its need.

In another case, a developer, at the cost of about
$300,000, had built a sewage treatment plant for a subdivision he had
developed. Shortly thereafter, the city passed an ordinance requiring all
sewage to be linked to the city sewage treatment plant. He was forced to
find about $500,000 to meet the new ordinance. When he sought to appeal
the decision he was confronted with a $100,000 fine per quarter for any
delay, thus depriving the developer of his right to appeal his case.

Such arbitrary and seemingly unfair decisions violate
the very essence of the principles of freedom. Many hard working, honest
citizens have lost their livelihood because of such heartless decisions.
Others have been forced to merge with larger organizations to survive, and
thus have effectively lost the ownership of their own business or
industry, which they have established by decades of hard work and
intelligent management.

Family Issues

Especially in developed countries, there has been a
dramatic change in the relationship between parental and government rights
and responsibilities. Certainly, some of the existing regulations have
been fueled by significant decline in parental responsibility. But this
does not excuse governments which become increasingly antagonistic to the
sovereignty of the family. In some nations, including some of the
Scandinavian nations, the law forbids spanking by parents of their
children. This is especially offensive to sincere Christians. Many
Christians see the wise, temperate use of corporal punishment as mandated
in the Scriptures. Especially, Solomon brings these concepts before
parents.

Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the
rod of correction shall drive it far from him. Proverbs 22:15

Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou
beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the
rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell. Proverbs 23:13, 14

He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that
loveth him chasteneth him betimes. Proverbs 13:24

The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to
himself bringeth his mother to shame. Proverbs 29:15

We are not in any way condoning the practice of child
abuse, for a wise parent will never punish in anger, and will help the
child to understand the reason, based upon love, for which the child is
being punished. But in some areas parents are afraid to administer such
punishment, because they fear that they are in danger of being reported to
Social Services agencies as child abusers.

Many parents are closely analyzing the agenda being
forced upon children in public school, as they are trained to accept the
concept of globalism and socialistic patterns of thinking. Children are
also being desensitized to so-called "alternative lifestyles,"
including homosexuality, lesbianism, premarital sex, and cohabiting of
singles. Thus, frequently, the public schools are seen as reflecting,
teaching, and even training children away from traditional values, and in
a lifestyle wholly inconsistent with the goals of responsible parents.
Such parents see these training methods as specifically aimed to
"liberate" the child from the values of the parents. Such
methods are linked to toleration, but no effort is made, in many
instances, to teach the difference between toleration to human beings, and
intolerance of acts that defy any civilized standard of decency.

Religious Issues

The religious climate has changed dramatically since
the end of the Second World War. Fifty years ago each church had a strong
body of truth, dogmas, and, in many cases, creeds to which every member
was expected to adhere. For example, it was not difficult to sense the
difference in salvation principles between Methodists, who believed in
freedom of the will, and Presbyterians, who believed in predestination,
two quite separate and incompatible concepts of the gospel and of the
saving principles of God.

But today, mergers between such groups are not
uncommon. For example, the Uniting Church of Australia, formed in 1977, is
comprised of the former Presbyterians, Methodists, and Congregationalists.
Biblical doctrines have been so de-emphasized that barely a skeleton of
the doctrine has been left.

In 1977 Russell was Deputy Medical Superintendent of a
large Melbourne University hospital. The senior hospital chaplain was a
Presbyterian pastor with several theological degrees. Russell asked the
chaplain how Methodists and Presbyterians were able to unite when their
respective doctrines of salvation were at such odds. The reply of the
chaplain typified the departure from a sense of the significance and
importance of doctrinal integrity. "I suppose you are correct,"
he replied, "I’ve never given it a second thought."

This is of course part of the strategy of the
ecumenical movements and of those sponsoring the concept of a one-world
religion. Perceptive Christians cannot escape the conclusion that the
blurring of doctrinal distinctives has resulted in an alarming decline in
the Bible-based standards of the churches, and has greatly weakened the
moral fiber of society, leading to a monumental increase in crime,
degrading practices, and the fracture of home life. It is not a little
ironic that those churches who must shoulder much of the responsibility
for the deplorable standards in today’s society, are now demanding the
greater intervention of government and law enforcement agencies to solve
by force, the problems to which they have contributed.

There is developing an acceptance of a wide range of
incompatible ideas and teachings. But ironically, this is leading to
intolerance against those who earnestly believe that they must follow a
specific set of beliefs and cannot endorse beliefs that are incompatible
with these.

The ecumenical movement is drawing churches into a
deceptive web of cooperation built upon false principles of unity. This
changing climate is fueled by interfaith fellowships and ministerial
fraternals, in which ministers of a wide range of denominations regularly
meet together. It has led the World Council of Churches to proffer what is
called the BEM Document (Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry). This document
calls for acceptance of any form of baptism, whether it be infant
sprinkling or adult consent, believer’s immersion, ignoring the fact
that huge numbers of people were martyred for their unwavering stand on
this issue.

The Eucharist represents the concept that the
wafer in the communion service is claimed to be the actual body of Christ,
whereas most Protestants believe the communion bread to be but a symbol of
the broken body of Christ. Once again, large numbers were martyred in past
history for their convictions on this doctrine. Yet the BEM document
testifies that both forms of communion are acceptable.

Not only does the Roman Catholic Church declare, in
contradistinction to Protestantism, that in the mass, the bread after
consecration becomes the actual body of Christ; but that the mass is
equally efficacious for our salvation as is the death of Christ on
Calvary.

The Eucharistic sacrifice is to be considered in so far
as in it Jesus Christ offers Himself, that is, He is not only the
sacrificial gift, but also the most eminent Sacrifice. In this respect the
Sacrifice of the Mass is not inferior in value to that of the Cross: both
are equally infinite, equally beyond all estimation and equally valuable.
(Dr. Nicholas Gihr, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, B. Herder Book
Co., St. Louis & London, English Edition 1939, page 135—This book
possessed the imprimateur of Archbishop Glennon.)

The ministry section of the BEM document limits the call
to witness, to witness only to those who are unchurched, that is,
those who are members of no specific denomination. Such a concept is
designed to rob earnest Christians of their responsibility to teach—to
proselytize those of other Christian faiths. Such proselytizing has ever
been central to the active ministry of every faithful Christian. It takes
little prophetic gift to predict that eventually those who believe they
have a God-given mandate to share their understanding of the gospel with
whoever will freely listen, be he pagan, atheist, or member of another
Christian church communion, will be condemned and ultimately persecuted as
those who are destroying the unity of this global religious movement. The
very toleration that such a movement proposes will eventually lead to a
fierce hostility directed against those who refuse to become part of the
world’s religion consensus. Christians must never neglect the warnings
of Scripture, which plainly state that both economic boycotts and death
will be penalties meted out against those of minority faith.

And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him,
whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the
foundation of the world. Revelation 13:8

And he had power to give life unto the image of the
beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as
many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. And he
causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to
receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: and that no man
might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or
the number of his name. Revelation 13:15–17

As we examine the dramatic advances in technology and
surveillance equipment, it is not difficult for perceptive citizens to
recognize that an infrastructure is being developed that will allow for
the most invasive activities of authoritative organizations against
citizens. High-tech equipment is now available to track our every move.
Someone has said that in New York City, for example, the average citizen
is photographed about twenty times a day by security cameras and other
devices. Credit cards provide huge amounts of information. While it is not
believed that all of this is in place in order to limit the freedom of
citizens, nevertheless we cannot be blind to the fact that these
remarkable advances will allow for the unscrupulous use of this
technology.

Sincere Christians are alarmed by these developments,
but they also realize that their only security and ultimate trust is in
the Lord Jesus Christ. Certainly this is the time for great vigilance on
the part of all the citizens of every nation.